IRENE ELIZABETH WOOTEN, APPELLANT,
v.
LONZO C. WOOTEN, SR., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's order modifying a divorce decree, which changed child custody from the mother to the father and reduced child support payments. The court found the modification was justified by subsequent events and did not constitute an abuse of discretion, prioritizing the children's welfare.
No, the lower court did not err. The modification was justified by subsequent events, and the court did not abuse its discretion in prioritizing the children's welfare.
“The record discloses occurrences subsequent to final decree which appear to justify the modification, and in such circumstances the chancellor's ruling must be affirmed.”
Establishes the basis for affirming the lower court's modification order.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a final divorce decree, the mother, Irene E. Wooten, was granted custody of the two minor children and received $240.00 monthly in support. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Modification Of Divorce Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
Irene E. Wooten brings interlocutory appeal from a post-decretal order modifying *747the final decree of divorce. The order appealed changed custody of the two minor children from mother to father and reduced the award for support payable to the mother from $240.00 to $141.00 monthly-
The record discloses occurrences subsequent to final decree which appear to justify the modification, and in such circumstances the chancellor’s ruling must be affirmed. The welfare of the children is the matter of prime concern, and we find no abuse of discretion in this respect.
By cross appeal appellee questions inter alia, the appellant’s need and right to further support payments. This was a matter within the discretion of the chancellor, and we likewise find no error.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, TJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garner v. Garner, 193 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…lative to the custody of minor children, the guiding star of the determination is the welfare of the children—Jones v. Jones, 1945, 156 Fla. 524, 23 So. 2d 623; Phillips v. Phillips, 1943, 153 Fla. 133, 13 So. 2d 922; Wooten v. Wooten, Fla.App.1960, 160 So. 2d 746. While it is quite natural for the human heart to open itself to the plight of either or both of the parents in such a situation, this basic consideration of the welfare of the children must take supreme position as against the welfare or the intere…
-
Powell v. Powell, 274 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…tive to the custody of minor children, the guiding star of the determination is the welfare of the children — Jones v. Jones, 1945, 156 Fla. 524, 23 So. 2d 623; Phillips v. Phillips, 1943, 153 Fla. 133, 13 So. 2d 922; Wooten v. Wooten, Fla.App.1960, 160 So. 2d 746.” In Anderson v. Anderson, 234 So. 2d 722 (Fla.App.1970) the situation in many respects was analogous to that here. In that case a court of a foreign jurisdiction had entered an order for temporary custody of a child. The Third District Court of Ap…